Posted
by
kdawsonon Friday April 02, 2010 @09:43AM
from the untangling-law-from-science dept.

Forget4it was one of several readers to note that British science writer Simon Singh, whose prosecution for libel we have discussed on several occasions, has won an interim victory in a UK appeals court. "The landmark ruling will allow the writer, whose battle has become a catalyst for demands for libel law reform, to rely on a 'fair comment' defense of his statements about chiropractors. It will also strengthen the position of others — from science writers and medical professionals to bloggers — who face libel suits, as the judges made clear the court was not the place to settle scientific controversies."

In fact, it's the real scientists who are suppressed by lawsuits. The story of Roger Revelle and Justin Lancaster is a particularly ugly example.

Revelle was a conservative climate scientist, who waited quite long with asserting that the world was warming as a result of human actions. He was also the one who taught the climatology course Al Gore took in university. While he lay severly ill and dying, Fred Singer persuaded him to put his name to a paper he had authored, allegedly for helping with some details

Just to be clear, Dr Singh is not being "prosecuted for libel" - that's only for criminal offences, and libel is not a criminal offence, but a civil wrong. He is being sued for libel, in the civil courts, by the BCA.

Prosecution - The institution and carrying on of a suit in a court
of law or equity, to obtain some right, or to redress
and punish some wrong; the carrying on of a judicial
proceeding in behalf of a complaining party, as
distinguished from defense.

Pedantically true; however, in normal UK usage, a prosecution is a criminal suit, prosecuted by the state, concerning offences against the criminal law. Yes, a civil case may be prosecuted, but it is not a prosecution.

Yup, the Court used that phrase. The observations on the side aren't legally binding, but they do give a pretty strong indication that the Court was not happy with the insane British libel laws which lead to (as the Court observed) attempting to settle scientific disputes in a court of law.

Unfortunately, absent a reform by Parliament, it looks like they might be making a "science exception" to avoid intruding into scientific controversies in particular, rather than some legal principle that would apply more generally. In particular, the UK courts have no similar problem wading into historical or political controversies, where the courts can be used to settle the correct version of history; it's only when it comes to science that they get cold feet.

the insane British libel laws ... as opposed to the insane American libel laws, where anyone can say anything they like about you - true or untrue - and there is no legal way to stop them. In the UK, you're only allowed to say what you like about someone if it's actually true.

The insane part is that the original judge decided that something that was substantially true was in fact untrue.

It's an impressive phrase, certainly, and one that might result in real change to the system. The problem is, I'm not sure anyone knows what to change the system to. The US system is diametrically opposite in style but identical in effect, encouraging actual harm by exactly the same sort of fringe groups that abuse the British system, also without really giving any effective protection to the voice of those being victimized. In some cases, this is individuals versus individuals (such as the woman who coaxed

Freedom of thought of absolute. Action can be regulated by government. Speech is closer to thought than action, and should be as lightly regulated as possible (e.g. forbidding threatening someone with physical harm). It is interesting that no society has explicitly recognized through law freedom of thought. I would guess this is because it seems obvious and what can government do about it anyway? With new technologies coming such as fMRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri [wikipedia.org], we should be carefully considering

We do have an interest in preventing government censorship. We also have an interest in protecting ourselves from false accusations. If somebody were to call me a pedophile, or child pornographer, or terrorist, I could suffer real and unpleasant consequences, despite the fact that I'm none of those. In an ideal world, this wouldn't happen. In this one, it's best if I have a means to defend myself by having a penalty imposed on slanderers and libelers, and if I have some sort of ability to get compensat

Placebos have been shown to have the same effect in the brain as pain relief drugs (e.g. Aspirin). It is most effective in double-blind scenarios (patient and doctor don't know there it is a placebo).Of course, you can't treat everything with it, and it has to be kept track of.

Your link just states an opinion of comparability to acupuncture, but provides no evidence. Acupuncture has been shown to be equally effective when using random "energy points".http://en.wikiped [wikipedia.org]

You can not base something on a placebo effect. You will not I said A placebo effect. There are different kinds, all are well known, and none heal anything.

Placebo effect cures psychosomatic illness just fine. Indirect effects of improved mood - such as getting off your butt and exercising instead of drowning your sorrows on beer - can also have quite a large effect on your health.

Of course homeopathy won't help with serious illness, but most illnesses are not serious, and will pass by on their own. In suc

Of course homeopathy won't help with serious illness, but most illnesses are not serious, and will pass by on their own. In such case, a placebo to alleviate the symptoms - or, rather, how the patient experiences the symptoms - can be the best possible help.

Perhaps, but I don't think that justifies deliberately deceiving the general public, nor spending tax dollars on what is quite literally making people feel better.

Chiropractic is not totally quackery. It all depends on which school of thought the chiropracter is in: If the chiropracter believes in subluxation, he or she is a quack. If they don't, they can be of some help in those few areas that spinal manipulation can help (primarily back and neck pain). However, a chiropracter generally does no more good than a good massuese.

Chiropractic is not quackery. While I -am- skeptical of all the benefits of it, its pretty common knowledge that if your back goes out of alignment it hurts. When a chiropractor puts it back into place, it stops hurting. Correlation does not imply causation, but when it happens to most everyone, I think it is safe to say that it does help alleviate back pain.

Depends on what you mean. But for dislocated joints, they are perfect.What I mean are those things, where they practically do a quick jerk that moves everything in place again.It’s obvious that this is no quackery, as it is the obvious solution to the problem.And then just learned how to do it properly.

You go there, and the explanation not to be surprised takes longer than the few seconds the action does, and you are done!Nothing beats that!:)

Real Chiropractors would never make crazy inflated claims about their techniques, like that it can cure cancers. Real Chiropractors generally are also General Practitioners as well, meaning they're just as qualified to diagnose a medical condition as your family doctor.

The real problem is that there's no way to prevent quacks from using (and sullying) the word "Chiropractor."

A chiropractor is definitely [b]not[/b] just as qualified as a GP to make diagnoses. An [b]osteopath[/b] is - they're kind of a specialist sub-doctor. An osteopath sometimes knows more about their area than a doctor does and they certainly have more practical experience outside doctors that have it as their particular area. GP's will refer patients to an osteopath, and vice versa, depending on what's wrong or what needs doing. Chiropractors are outside this loop. They are at best, specialist masseurs, at w

I personally know a Chiropractor who is fully licensed as a Family Practice M.D., as is everybody who graduates from his Chiropractic school [palmer.edu] in San Jose. (It's a requirement of the program there.) He proudly calls himself a Chiropractor, and I've never heard him use the term "Osteopath."

Maybe the terminology in the UK is different than the US. (You didn't say where you are.)

But I can guarantee you that any graduate of Palmer College is fully qualified and licensed as a Family Practice M.D. as well

My favorite quote: "The chiropractic therapeutics rest upon the doctrine that the way to get rid of such pinches is to climb upon a table and submit to a heroic pummeling by a retired piano-mover. This, obviously, is buncombe doubly damned."

In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence — any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true.

Any false and misleading statement made should then be actionable. If you want to sue Singh for questioning chiropracty's scientific validity, then if and when it is proved conclusively to have no scientific value, every single chiropractor should be civilly liable, even criminally liable, for telling the public that it is valid.

It'd only be actionable if "made a false statement" was a sufficient condition for libel. It's only a necessary condition. In fact there's no tort which allows you to prosecute someone for simply making a false statement.

Meanwhile, in another segment of UK law, free speech is being undermined by the criminalization of "child pornography" that does not include actual photos of actual children. Apparently depicting something harmful is as harmful as doing something harmful.

I'm currently reading The Emergence of a Scientific Culture [oup.com] by S. Gaukroger. My interest stems from past readings in epistemology as a study of the methodology of science, and, my interest in Mediterranean death cult religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism as patriarchal control mechanisms, not unlike induced schizo-affective disorders, that come into play in agrarian societies with controlling oligarchies (monarchies) ensconced in developing urban centres. It's my own take on things that's evolved f

It is, unless and until the quacks manage to overturn this decision, now legal to state that you think Chiropractic treatment is a croc-o-shite, as evidenced by the fact that the chose to defend themselves against people suggesting their services are a croc-o-shite using the legal system rather than any providing some good scientific evidencethat their treatments may in fact not be a croc-o-shite. This is indeed a GoodThing.

In the few cases that Chiropractic treatments have been shown to help, those relatin

Well, he can soon publish his papers, meaning you can make your own informed opinion.

The appellate court didn't decide the case, they just reversed the lower court on the standard to be used: "fair comment" rather than "objective truth." He still has to go through a trial on whether his column was, in fact, "fair comment."

Trolling or just not reading the previous discussions? The issue is indeed about making claims without evidence to back them up: Singh observed that the British Chiropractic Association claims that they can cure a laundry list of medical issues but that there was no evidence to support this. The BCA responded by suing him.

um... I thought that the issue in this particular proceeding was another judge's decision that by Singh's use of the word "bogus" he meant that chiropracters were intentionally dishonest (libelous), rather than an opinion (fair comment) of the scientific merits of chiropractic.

So what? The BCA claimed its members could cure just about anything with their techniques, despite these members knowing they can't, and not having "a joy of evidence" to back up their claims. Because the UK has crazy libel laws, the BCA was trying to go after Singh personally, and not the paper that published the piece, which is the normal practice, seeing as the papers have far deeper pockets. The BCA also declined to do a rebuttal in the same paper. I.e. they know they have no evidence that will withstan

"Had this recent ruling gone the other way, Singh would have needed to prove that they *knew* it was all lies which would have been nearly impossible."

Not in the slightest, he simply amasses an army of QUALIFIED doctors who can simply say "No way in hell can they cure a viral infection by adjusting your bones, PERIOD. Even they should know that from the basics of medical school" and that's the end of that bullshit.

I know chiropractors that claim they can cure illnesses by adjusting your back, I saw several after my accident.

Chiropractors are primarily quack doctors that only make money by giving never-lasting relief. The FEW chiropractors that do realize they only provide temporary relief and are honest about it are almost universally fucked by the moron quacks that make their spurious claims.

The FEW chiropractors that do realize they only provide temporary relief and are honest about it are almost universally fucked by the moron quacks that make their spurious claims.

Just an FYI, in the U.S. licensing standards for chiropractors actually vary state by state, rather widely. So in some states the legitimate practitioners of musculoskeletal therapies are in fact rather common, while in other states it is as you describe.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you are not a scientist. The efficacy of any treatment needs to be judged by reliable trials, not by what some guy on slashdot said. What did Singh say? The libellous words were "there is not a jot of evidence that chiropractic works", or something to that effect. That's a pretty reasonable summary of the scientific evidence. I'll leave it to you to explain why it's better to respond to such a statement with a lawsuit than a study of your own.

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

The BCA latched onto the word "bogus". They claimed that it implied intentional deception, that the BCA knew it didn't work but promoted it anyway. It's still stupid, of course. No one reading the piece by Singh will think he accuses them of not believing what they teach.

In a earlier ruling, the judge David Eady (already infamous for poor judgement in libel cases) gave the BCA a major victory by declaring that "bogus" meant "deliberately deceptive". The case would have been impossible to fight for Singh while that stood, since he would have to prove that BCA chiropractics are deliberately deceptive. That is not true, and he didn't believe it either.

So apparently that was rejected, or the BCA retreated to less favourable ground for some reason.

(Late reply, been away for a week, apologies). Actually, Justice Eady is the most knowledgeable judge around on libel and privacy issues, having spent his career as a barrister working on both sides of the fence. His name comes up on controversial cases precise because they *are* difficult cases. Read his judgements sometime: while we may disagree with his conclusions, his reasoning is sound and well evidenced and narrowly ruled within existing case law.

It seems to me that if you're going to run a for-pay business that purports to "heal people" then you ought to have at least a little evidence to show that what you're doing is actually working. There is currently no evidence to support Chiropractic's "subluxation" theories. I used to live above a chiropractor who claimed that he could cure diabetes via direct spinal manipulation.

Many of them also refuse to acknowledge Pasteur's Germ Theory of Disease [wikipedia.org]. I'd say that they could use a little bit of evidence on their side instead of hiding behind ridiculous libel laws. I wonder if this post will get me sued in the UK?

There is currently no evidence to support Chiropractic's "subluxation" theories.

You are right, of course, but it would be more complete and accurate to say 'there is currently an abundance of evidence that Chiropractic's "subluxation" theories are false and misleading'. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack; but in this case there is plenty of evidence of lack.

So, you had a back rub and it felt great. Great, nobody is disputing that back rubs feel great. If you RFTA you'd see that isn't what this is about.

What this is about is claims by the BCA that a nice back rub can cure a laundry list of aliments that have no connection to you back whatsoever such as: ADHD/learning disabilities, dizziness, high blood pressure, vision conditions, asthma, baby colic, bedwetting, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, kinetic imbalance due to suboccipital strain (KISS) in infants and menstrual cramps.

If you can explain how a back rub can cure these conditions, then there's a Nobel prize in medicine with your name on it.

I spent 2 years - TWO - having so much back pain that I had trouble tying my shoes, picking stuff up, couldn't do dishes, vacuum... Feeling like crying, not so much because of the actual pain, as because of the despair of not being able to do much anymore.

I went to a regular doctor, gave me pain killers and muscle relaxants. Felt goofy, but not healed. So relaxed I had trouble holding anything, actually.

He then sent me to a Kinesitherapeute, which is the officially anointed cure for back pain in France. Mas

For many years I couldn't sleep on my side (i'm only 29) so I'm not sure how it happened but after a few minutes of lying on my side it would hurt. I learnt to sleep absolutely still lying on back.
Then I had to do a photography project about medicine, I spoke to my friend who was a chiropractor and while we were waiting for patients to photograph he gave me a free session. He clicked my spine so hard I started to laugh and since then I can sleep anyway I like, its amazing to have that freedom (no doubt

The data suggests that the best case with chiropractic is just the placebo effect. And I haven't got hard data to hand, but I've read reports in the past of people being seriously injured by chiropractors.

1- It's even better if it's placebo. The only thing better that medecine that works, is non-medicine that works.

How is non-medicine that works 'better' than medicine that works? Surely in the first case, we hvae no idea what happened and don't have much of a chance of successfully repeating it in the future. Surely if it worked, we'd call it just 'medicine'? If we have a situation where the only conclusion we can come to is 'non-medicine worked', we're basically saying 'we don't know what the fuck happened'

1- Non-medicine that works is better than medicine that works because healing myself is better than being healed in the same way that getting back on my feet on my own is better than crying for daddy. Not knowing how something works does not make it worse than knowing, just more challenging. If you think about it, we don't actually know how most of nature works.

2- Yes, me getting fixed means chiropractic works. Maybe not always, maybe not for everyone, but at least in some cases. It even means it works bett

1. Not knowing how something works is better than knowing how it works because you did it yourself? You're right, we don't know how most of nature works. But we spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure it out because the results might be useful to others.

2. No, you getting fixed doesn't means chiropractic works, the only thing it means is 'you got fixed'. We have no idea how. It may have been magic ponies. It may have been the previous doctor visits that you had. We don't know. You may thin

1- Yes. Doing something yourself even if you don't know exactly how is better than having someone else do it.

2- Yes it does. I hurt for 2 years, regular medecine can not possibly have chosen the precise 45 minutes I spent at the Chiro, 6 months after my last 'regular' treatment, to suddenly work. And to work again 6 months later when I re-hurt my back help my brother move. I don't think it was magic ponies. Do you ?

3- In a way, yes. Same as all faith healers. That's wxhat the placebo effect is, look it up.

1. I think we'll have to disagree on what's better. In my view, anything that increases the amount of useful knowledge in the world is better than a sense of self-enablement.

2. The data suggests it's all in your mind. There's nothing to suggest that anything the chiropractor did could also have been done by someone in a wizard's hat waving his hands around and saying 'woooooo'.

3. Interestingly, there have been studies where the placebo effect has worked even when the participant knew it was a placebo.

Nobody disputes that a good back rub can help with back problems. If something in your spine is out of place and causing (back) pain, a good whack could conceivably help. Just like a dislocated shoulder can sometimes be fixed through manipulation alone.

It seems that if you're going to bad mouth an entire profession, there should be some kind of evidence to back it up. It sounds like he's just got it in for chiropractors.

It seems to me that if you're going to bad-mouth a profession, it should be understood that this is your personal opinion, it may or may not represent reality, and you're entitled to it. Anyone who is undecided about the efficacy of chiropractors and is looking for information about them -- and for that matter, anyone else participating

Hate speech, by definition is destroying freedom of speech. Also, note that hate speech is different than threats. No one person is targeted if someone said "I hate Mexicans" but if someone said "I'm going to kill Jose because hes a mexican" that is a threat, and Jose should be allowed to sue if the comment was not said in jest and the person had the means to kill him.

Why should we care what opinions people have? And why waste tax dollars on them? Same thing with "hate" crimes. If someone killed someone

I don't intend to convince you of the rightness of their opinions, just explain to you where they're coming from, since you seem to be coming from the "dead is dead, what does it matter the reason" school of thought.

I generally agree with the GP. When you read his post, I believe there is an implicit meaning that you have missed.

It's not "dead is dead, what does the reason matter". It's "intentionally dead is intentionally dead, except for legitimate self-defense, what does the reason matter". If someone intentionally murders another human being who was no physical threat to them, the purpose of arresting and incarcerating (or executing) that individual is to remove them from society, thereby protecting society from a known murderer and potentially deterring others who would murder.

I don't understand the concern and fascination with what a murderer was thinking. To punish one more severely than another, which would mean one might get out of jail sooner than another, makes no sense to me. To choose whether I want a guy who would murder for money back on the streets, or whether I want a guy who would murder over someone's skin tone back on the streets is like choosing from which bucket of puke to drink. Both are equally unappealing. I don't really want either person to ever walk the streets again.

I'll clarify. You are saying that the motive for the crime matters to "Democrats". So to them, a guy who comes home to find his wife screwing another man and murders his wife is "more understandable" or "less punishable" than a guy who murders a member of a racial minority because he was a member of that minority. But guess what? Other people get cheated on by someone who claimed to love them, and they don't kill over it. Other people have totally inappropriate racism and sexism and other "isms" and manage not to murder anyone. Other people see a rich man walk down the street and envy his wealth and manage not to kill that man.

To worry about the murderer's excuses and justifications is madness. I don't care what the reason is. The point is, other people also have reasons not to like someone, valid and invalid, and they manage to deal with them peacefully. If someone cannot do that, there's something seriously wrong with them and society needs to be protected from them.

Like far too many laws, these "hate crime" concepts were written, voted upon, and made law without first addressing the above. That's a weak form of "might makes right" reasoning. The message is, we have the votes, we have the means, we have the political clout, so we're going to make this law whether we can justify it or not, whether we can answer the objections to it or not. Anytime you're asked to have faith in a concept by a person who cannot address your objections to it, because it sounds good to them but they can't give you a truly good reason for it, what you are dealing with is religion. Even if it doesn't call itself that.
To give a hypothetical, let's say that, heaven forbid, a guy is driving down the road, visibility is very low, conditions are bad, and he hits a pedestrian that he honestly did not see. This person had no intention of hitting anyone, and is quite horrified that this happened. That's an honest accident. I would not call this person a murderer.

So to them, a guy who comes home to find his wife screwing another man and murders his wife is "more understandable" or "less punishable" than a guy who murders a member of a racial minority because he was a member of that minority.

The difference is that, as a culture, America has a long history of racially motivated violence and (this is the important bit) we want to do everything in our power to remove that impulse from society.

It's the exact same kind of reasoning behind luxury taxes or gas guzzler taxes on cars.There are certain behaviors we want to discourage in society and so we put into place extra penalties to discourage them.

The message is, we have the votes, we have the means, we have the political clout, so we're going to make this law whether we can justify it or not, whether we can answer the objections to it or not.

No.If you really care to educate yourself, go find a book. Endless pages have been written about hate

The difference is that, as a culture, America has a long history of racially motivated violence and (this is the important bit) we want to do everything in our power to remove that impulse from society.

The best way to do that is through education. This has another benefit. Unlike hate crime laws, we don't have to wait until a person has become a victim of a racially motivated crime before we can use education.

It's the exact same kind of reasoning behind luxury taxes or gas guzzler taxes on cars.
There a

Motive matters in some cases because we can hold more than a single, direct perpetrator guilty of the same crime. We can, for example, charge the get-away driver with bank robbery, even though he never entered the bank. Right now in the US, there's a young girl accused of conspiracy to commit attempted murder, because she allegedly pointed out the victim to the assailant. Her motive certainly matters. Did she want at least a fight to happen? The principal assailant's motive proba

Motive matters in some cases because we can hold more than a single, direct perpetrator guilty of the same crime. We can, for example, charge the get-away driver with bank robbery, even though he never entered the bank.

But driving a get-away vehicle, or otherwise taking part in a robbery, is already a crime. The person either drove the get-away car or they didn't. If they did, they are guilty of a crime. If they didn't, they aren't. What they were thinking, or why they drove the car, or why they want t

Hate speech. Where did they dream that phrase up, anyway? What's wrong with having an opinion, anyway? Should a person go to jail if he says he doesn't like teachers? Lawyers? Police? I don't think so. Why should chiropractors enjoy protection? I think chiropractors are overly expensive, much like doctors. There, have I pissed off almost everyone yet?

Oh, of course not. If I want to piss people off around here, I'll have to point out that nerds and geeks are wierd, IT people are pains in the ass, de

Your error is in assuming that the fact that BadAnalogyGuy used the phrase wrongly means that the phrase itself has no useful meaning. I noticed that both you and he used professions in your discussion, but that's not where "hate speech" is a useful term. It's when speech is used to generate hate about something that isn't reasonably changeable, like a person's skin color or religion, that it takes on meaning.

Your error is in assuming that the fact that BadAnalogyGuy used the phrase wrongly means that the phrase itself has no useful meaning. I noticed that both you and he used professions in your discussion, but that's not where "hate speech" is a useful term. It's when speech is used to generate hate about something that isn't reasonably changeable, like a person's skin color or religion, that it takes on meaning.
Virg

I wonder if you've thought that through. So it's wrong to hate a thing that is not easily changed, but okay to hate a thing that the person can change. If this is your guiding principle, what you end up with is a uniform society of conformists. They'll superficially look different (skin color, attire, etc) but any meaningful diversity will end there, because any real diversity of ideas, worldviews and philosophies is now on the "acceptable hatred" list. That's the problem with this notion, and more gene

Alright, then, I hate short people for always getting underfoot. And, I hate extremely tall people, because I have to look UP, and get a crick in my neck when I talk to them. I hate stupid people. I guess hating on phat people wouldn't count, because they can change their phat content?

But there is no evidence to support any healing properties. You can go get a massage and feel great, but as soon as the masseuse starts saying he has magical healing abilities and can cure illness then they have crossed the line.

"A male masseuse"?Isn't that what Julius Caesar said to Pompey before crossing the Rubicon?I think that's crossing the line already.As soon as the masseuse starts saying he has magical healing abilities and can cure illness then he will begin to attract disciples and followers. Of course, "masseuse" will have to be changed to "carpenter" later, to appeal to a broader customer base.Carry on.

Wait, that bit about the blowjob is interesting. I mean it is a stress relief, and there are generally studies that suggest having a regular healthy sex life leads to longer life, better health etc. So, while I am getting my medical marijuana prescription filled why shouldn't I be able to get a medical blow job . . . prostitutes could well be considered health practitioners.